citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's right to preferential reimbursement was established on the 19th anniversary of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act (the 2nd anniversary of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act, 3th anniversary of the above 1982 to July 31, 1989; the 4nd and 5th each right to preferential reimbursement was established on the 9th anniversary of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act; the 3th anniversary of the above revised Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act (the 9th revision of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act) and the 9th anniversary of the 19th revision of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act (the 19th revision of the Housing Lease Protection Act, 3th anniversary of the 9th revision of the former Enforcement Decree; the 2nd and the 9th revision of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which was established on the 9th revision of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

According to Paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the amended Act, it is reasonable to judge whether a person who acquired a security right on a rental house prior to the enforcement of this Act is a small lessee pursuant to the provisions of the amended Act. However, in the case of each of the fourth and fifth secured mortgages on February 9, 190, which was established at the time of the establishment of each of the fourth and fifth secured mortgages, the new requirements for the delegation of the amended Act are not yet implemented. Thus, the former Enforcement Decree still remains effective until the new Enforcement Decree is implemented within the extent that it does not go against the purpose of the amended Act, unless there are any special circumstances. Since there is no transitional provision in the amended Enforcement Decree which was enforced from February 19, 190 thereafter, the provisions of the amended Enforcement Decree cannot be applied to the above fourth and fifth secured mortgages immediately after the enforcement of the amended Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the provision of the revised Enforcement Decree applies to the case of each of the instant 4 and 5 collateral mortgages, and held that it takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s 4 and 5 collateral mortgages within the scope of 7 million won out of the Defendant’s claim to return the above lease deposit. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)